Cargando…

Unsatisfactory rates vary between cervical cytology samples prepared using ThinPrep and SurePath platforms: a review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: To compare unsatisfactory rates between the two major liquid-based cytology (LBC) platforms, namely ThinPrep (Hologic) and SurePath (Becton Dickinson). DESIGN: The authors performed both a systematic review and a meta-analysis. Inclusion criteria were English language, data presented on u...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fontaine, Daniel, Narine, Nadira, Naugler, Christopher
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Group 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3332241/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22505312
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2012-000847
_version_ 1782230201451675648
author Fontaine, Daniel
Narine, Nadira
Naugler, Christopher
author_facet Fontaine, Daniel
Narine, Nadira
Naugler, Christopher
author_sort Fontaine, Daniel
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To compare unsatisfactory rates between the two major liquid-based cytology (LBC) platforms, namely ThinPrep (Hologic) and SurePath (Becton Dickinson). DESIGN: The authors performed both a systematic review and a meta-analysis. Inclusion criteria were English language, data presented on unsatisfactory rates for either ThinPrep or SurePath, utilising actual patient samples (ie, not laboratory manipulated samples) and no manipulation using acetic acid to increase the satisfactory rate. The authors searched PubMed for articles using the keywords ‘SurePath’ or ‘ThinPrep’ and ‘unsatisfactory’. References of retrieved studies were searched for additional articles. Key researchers in the field were also contacted. PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS: Eligible studies were reviewed for rates of unsatisfactory cervical cytology smears processed on either the ThinPrep or SurePath platforms (compared with a general linear model) or data on unsatisfactory rates for both platforms for the same laboratory and the same patient population (compared with a meta-analysis using a random effects model and pooled RR). PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Unsatisfactory rate of cervical cytology smears. RESULTS: A total of 1 120 418 cervical cytology smears were reported in 14 different studies using the SurePath platform for an overall unsatisfactory rate (weighted average) of 0.3%. 28 studies reported on 1 148 755 smears prepared using the ThinPrep platform for an overall unsatisfactory rate (weighted average) of 1.3%. The general linear model did not show a difference between LBC platforms when other variables were controlled for; however, the power to detect a difference (0.087) was very low. The meta-analysis performed on four studies where both ThinPrep and SurePath results were reported from the same laboratory showed fewer unsatisfactory tests from the SurePath platform (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.77, p=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Multiple factors affect LBC unsatisfactory rates. In a meta-analysis, cervical cytology samples prepared on the SurePath platform show significantly fewer unsatisfactory smears than those prepared on the ThinPrep platform.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3332241
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher BMJ Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-33322412012-04-23 Unsatisfactory rates vary between cervical cytology samples prepared using ThinPrep and SurePath platforms: a review and meta-analysis Fontaine, Daniel Narine, Nadira Naugler, Christopher BMJ Open Pathology OBJECTIVE: To compare unsatisfactory rates between the two major liquid-based cytology (LBC) platforms, namely ThinPrep (Hologic) and SurePath (Becton Dickinson). DESIGN: The authors performed both a systematic review and a meta-analysis. Inclusion criteria were English language, data presented on unsatisfactory rates for either ThinPrep or SurePath, utilising actual patient samples (ie, not laboratory manipulated samples) and no manipulation using acetic acid to increase the satisfactory rate. The authors searched PubMed for articles using the keywords ‘SurePath’ or ‘ThinPrep’ and ‘unsatisfactory’. References of retrieved studies were searched for additional articles. Key researchers in the field were also contacted. PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS: Eligible studies were reviewed for rates of unsatisfactory cervical cytology smears processed on either the ThinPrep or SurePath platforms (compared with a general linear model) or data on unsatisfactory rates for both platforms for the same laboratory and the same patient population (compared with a meta-analysis using a random effects model and pooled RR). PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Unsatisfactory rate of cervical cytology smears. RESULTS: A total of 1 120 418 cervical cytology smears were reported in 14 different studies using the SurePath platform for an overall unsatisfactory rate (weighted average) of 0.3%. 28 studies reported on 1 148 755 smears prepared using the ThinPrep platform for an overall unsatisfactory rate (weighted average) of 1.3%. The general linear model did not show a difference between LBC platforms when other variables were controlled for; however, the power to detect a difference (0.087) was very low. The meta-analysis performed on four studies where both ThinPrep and SurePath results were reported from the same laboratory showed fewer unsatisfactory tests from the SurePath platform (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.77, p=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Multiple factors affect LBC unsatisfactory rates. In a meta-analysis, cervical cytology samples prepared on the SurePath platform show significantly fewer unsatisfactory smears than those prepared on the ThinPrep platform. BMJ Group 2012-04-13 /pmc/articles/PMC3332241/ /pubmed/22505312 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2012-000847 Text en © 2012, Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non commercial and is otherwise in compliance with the license. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/legalcode.
spellingShingle Pathology
Fontaine, Daniel
Narine, Nadira
Naugler, Christopher
Unsatisfactory rates vary between cervical cytology samples prepared using ThinPrep and SurePath platforms: a review and meta-analysis
title Unsatisfactory rates vary between cervical cytology samples prepared using ThinPrep and SurePath platforms: a review and meta-analysis
title_full Unsatisfactory rates vary between cervical cytology samples prepared using ThinPrep and SurePath platforms: a review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Unsatisfactory rates vary between cervical cytology samples prepared using ThinPrep and SurePath platforms: a review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Unsatisfactory rates vary between cervical cytology samples prepared using ThinPrep and SurePath platforms: a review and meta-analysis
title_short Unsatisfactory rates vary between cervical cytology samples prepared using ThinPrep and SurePath platforms: a review and meta-analysis
title_sort unsatisfactory rates vary between cervical cytology samples prepared using thinprep and surepath platforms: a review and meta-analysis
topic Pathology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3332241/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22505312
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2012-000847
work_keys_str_mv AT fontainedaniel unsatisfactoryratesvarybetweencervicalcytologysamplespreparedusingthinprepandsurepathplatformsareviewandmetaanalysis
AT narinenadira unsatisfactoryratesvarybetweencervicalcytologysamplespreparedusingthinprepandsurepathplatformsareviewandmetaanalysis
AT nauglerchristopher unsatisfactoryratesvarybetweencervicalcytologysamplespreparedusingthinprepandsurepathplatformsareviewandmetaanalysis